Harry You have some valid points here in terms of a strategy for sounding the alarm but I think this is only one pillar and there needs to be at least another pillar in place to hold up the ceiling..

That other pillar in my mind is for us Men to BOYCOTT Western Women completely and match up with women from other non-feminized and more traditionally feminine nations and regions such as Eastern Europe and the FSU.

If you want to put the Fear of GOD into them..

Then take away their choice for a future partner and children by default and tell them that the choices they offer are not worth it and have too high of a liability.

This is what will change things faster in my mind..

The Feminized Women of the West need to wake up and say holy cr*p.. we’ve really screwed up..

And the only way this will happen is if they realize that they are going to wake up alone indefinetely..

As you know this is something that I’ve been advocating for a long time now..

And if anyone wants to read more about it they can visit my blog “russian women the real truth”.

Thanks to all of you..

GL

What exactly would America look like if you got the changes in law and in society that you want for men?

Not a list of what is wrong now, but rather the affirmative case:

In the America that you seek, what would be the good circumstances in law, in courts, and in the day to day lives of men in general and fathers in specific?

If I were in my depressed mode I would throw my hands up am cry at the lack of impact we have had to date.

Instead here’s Clough, the MRA’s own prophet.

Say not the Struggle Naught availeth

By Arthur Hugh Clough
1819-1861
________________________________________

SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the Main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!

I submit that MRAs could try to leverage a marriage strike with a procreation strike to trade for something in return, rather that just waste two of the most powerful tools they have with women. Marriage and child bearing.

For instance if men could agree to simply refuse to get married until VAWA is repealed and refuse to have children until Presumtive Joint Custody law is the norm in every state they might be able to gain something in return for what they’re already doing anyway.

The fact is that almost all women are feminist because it pays them to be. They may not be NOW feminist, but relatively few stand up and say NOW doesn’t speak for me either. If men were to follow through with their threat it wouldn’t take long for the biological clocks to begin kicking in. Once women begin to realize that they’re not going to have the day they’ve dreamed of since they were children where all eyes are on them, they may begin to listen to what men are saying. I guarantee that once they realize that men won’t father a child for them they’ll begin to listen.

However, I think the likelyhood of anything like that happening is slim. I have to say that if there is an MM it’s in it’s infancy.

There he goes again. Go ahead and characterize it any way you want.

Your posting here does not equate to fighting. It accomplishes nothing.

The marriage strike is a significant tool. Never before has America seen such a dramatic decline in marriage. Married couples with children who are the same biological mother and father make up less than 25% of all households. Single people and “never married’s” are over 50% of all households. Men in large numbers are avoiding it altogether. Looking at each decade of life and we see men large percentages of men in their 20s and 30s with no intention of marrying, and growing percentages in their 40s and beyond who make up the “never married’s”. These men are not running away and hiding-they are preserving their liberty. And the very act of millions of men acting in their own self-interests is giving a large swathe of the female population NO-HOPE of ever marrying. If you run into a burning building you should expect to get burned. You can call us the Run and Hide crowd if you want. We call your type The Idiots.

The beauty of this is that we don’t have to actively fight anything-not the government who is aligned against men (thanks to the aggressiveness of radical feminists and the incredible passivity of men/fathers, both past and present)and not the women.

Go ahead FathersHaveNaturalRights-I encourage you to fight and show that you are this strong can-do man-prove to me that you can go up against the government. You guys all talk big-and have accomplished nothing-NOTHING.

As you said (and I agree):

“And my way is the one that has not been done in the last 40 years. It is the change that needs to happen. With no doubt.”

We are the only ones accomplishing anything significant.

The women are getting the message too.

There are also those who say “run away and hide from it”, per those advocating the patently ridiculous so-called ‘marriage strike’.

Personally, I say, “Stand up, speak up, and fight the injustice indefatigably.”

And yes, that, my prescription, is exactly what real men do. Saying so isn’t shaming at all and it is fallacious to mislabel it with that word.

What it is is encouraging people to proceed down the best possible path.

And my way is the one that has not been done in the last 40 years. It is the change that needs to happen. With no doubt.

On the other hand, that leaves millions of children out in the cold, suffering abuse and dying so that lawyers can get the money they so badly want, and feminists feel better about themselves for satiating their hate.

My view is if a lawyer makes a million dollars and ten feminists feel better about themselves for a week, it’s not worth even one child dying over. Yes, this is an unpopular view as laws are “practiced” today, but most people who aren’t part of the corruption and exploitation of children would agree with me. We just need to take our governments back, away from the special interest groups who prefer abused, molested, neglected, and dead children.

And you father’s have shown us men for the last 40+ years just how effective your “fighting” has been.

The truth is there has been no effective fighting.

And the shaming tactics, and your attempts to portray yourself as “the man” falls on many deaf ears as well. We have all been listening to such talk for decades, e.g.,listening to women insult, denigrate, and emasculate men, along with the women AND men from religious right and other chivalrists, as well as from the feminized liberal manginas who are all no different. Get in line behind the rest of them.

The marriage strike is the only effective weapon today-it is causing women to re-think some of the above attitudes they have been displaying for decades-and is putting the power back into the hands of men as individuals. Collectively-one day-we will be a force to be reckoned with.

In the mean time, I’ll be watching to see just how effective your “fighting” will be.

Running away and hiding is a really poor answer. So, the feminist matriarchy treats fatherhood like garbage and so you will run from raising a family?

In that case, you have just let the feminist matriarchy define your life for you, and you’ve gotten out of the way so they can trash fathers and husbands even more.

The manly thing to do is to be a husband and a father and acknowledge how screwed up the system is and fight it tooth and nail. To analogize, if someone is throwing bricks at your house, you don’t win by saying, “Well, I won’t have a house then!”

NO.

You win by fighting, and instituting protection for your house, declaring your right to preserve, protect and defend your house, and refusing to compromise your life because feminism is bent on cheapening specific parts of it.

Also we need 1000 Marc Rudov’s blitzing the TV and radio media all over the western world. Women need to hear men’s grievances in this way because the internet alone is not going to cut it.

“Pre-marital contracts, “pre-nups”, don’t reverse every element of discrimination against men, but they are one of the most necessary tools for men to protect their own interests.”

“Pre-marital contracts, “pre-nups” are pretty much worthless for two main reasons.

First, they have a time limit of usually 10 years, after which they are null and void.

Second, nothing in a pre-nup can be against a social norm. So if you put in there no child support it won’t hold.

Some reject such tools on the apparent basis that no one tool accomplishes everything.

Really though, men need to embrace every constructive tool available to them, and pre-marital contracts are a big one. Just google “premarital contract” or “prenuptial agreement” to get the forms. It can be done inexpensively. And it is an amazing force of personal protection. )

Perhaps not, but it’s not just a “handful” of men. The numbers are significant: perhaps a quarter or a third of men in what would otherwise be their prime marrying years, according to one recent reputable academic survey/study. Recall that only about a quarter of the population has a college diploma.

What MRA’s need to communicate to the average woman-on-the-street in language that matters to her and gets to her where she lives is that the marriage strikers are not just a random sample of men, but rather are made up predominantly of those men which stand to lose the most should things end up before a family law judge. These just happen to be the men who have the most to offer by way of education, decent jobs, stable lifestyles, savings accounts, etc.

One doesn’t have to spend much time on any single’s/dating site to see lots of women’s headlines reading “Where Are All the Good Men?” or “Are There Any Good Ones Left?” The answer of course is that there are, but they’ve dropped out of the dating/mating scene (making them invisible to women) because the risk/reward situation simply doesn’t make it a worthwhile proposition. So women are left with the low-status guys who have nothing or little, and therefore risk nothing or little.

Lots of women will then counter with two standard items to make this line of argument go away: 1) choosing correctly; 2) pre-nups.

#1 obviously blames the victim and makes it seems as though when a guy gets royally screwed in a divorce it was somehow his fault, that there are ‘right’ women and ‘wrong’ women, and that by choosing the latter he just got what he deserved. This can lead to a discussion of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, women changing from right to wrong, etc.

#2… Lot’s of women are under the impression that any problems men have with regard to marriage are entirely solved with a pre-nup. I think this is best handled by pointing out how what many men (and women) would consider to be the principle asset of a marriage, namely the children the two have together, can’t be divvied up in advance in a pre-nup (since they don’t exist at the time the pre-nup was made). And that it’s the children, whose custody is awarded to the woman 85%-90% of the time, is what’s used as leverage to make divorce a financial hell for so many men. People are fond of saying marriage is a “contract”, but you really can’t make it up the way you want to and expect the state to enforce said contract; quite the contrary, the family law judge can throw out a pre-nup on pretty much a whim.

First, as long as men want families, they will have to face societal treatment of fathers.

Second, a handful of men opting out of long-term stable relationships and parenthood doesn’t help civilization regain it’s footing.

Instead of opting out of the things that give men a reason to believe in, care about, and work for the future, men should be fighting to make opting in to things like marriage and fatherhood a more stable preposition, as opposed to a set of things that can be stripped from them by family courts.

If someone is poised to steal your home, you don’t say “Fine, I’ll live without a home then”… rather, you say, “I will have my home and find ways to keep you from taking it from me.”

Even if we don’t support absolute equality between men and women– and God knows the feminists don’t!– the Mary Poppins approach can get a foot in the door in certain situations where a more blunt approach would get it chopped off.

You asked for ideas on what men should be doing to undo the social damages that were and are being done.

First and foremost men must take back control of the educations systems in the developed nations. The problems we are discussing aren’t just American problems. They are global ones.

The next major step, is to form law societies that are run and controlled by men, so as to counteract and neutralize feminist law societies. That should be done concurrently with getting control of education.

That may sound simple, and it is, but that will take at least 30 years to get put into place.

You have a good grasp of what the problems are that plague us. From what I can see, I share your concerns, virtually to identical extents. The question is whether there are half a million men in the USA (and comparable numbers of men in other developed nations) to complain just as well, at the same time and about the same things.

There are three major steps to successful problem solving:

1.) Problem recognition by a critical mass of people that make up and are affected by a given system. A nation is a system. Civilization is a larger system in which nations are nested. Families are systems nested within communities, which in turn are nested in states are provinces, which latter are nested within a nation. Problem recognition is, for example, an understanding reached by many like-minded people as to what prevents a nation and all of civilization from functioning at optimum or at a satisfactory level of performance.
Problem recognition involves an understanding of the impact of the detrimental outcomes of the social systems in place, of the history of their evolution and of the nature of their ultimate consequences if nothing is done to eliminate or neutralize them.
One more thing is necessary in that first major step. That is to develop the will to do something to make things better by eradicating the problems that hinder us from functioning well.

2.) Solution design: To determine what needs to be done to bring us from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of satisfaction.

3.) Solution implementation and implementation of a system of feedback and control that ensures that the improved system will work within desired performance standards. Whitout feedback and control, things will deteriorate, to eventually and inexorable towards total disfunction. Systems that are left to themselves will always run down to total disfunction, either gradually or in a catastrophic collapse.

It is not the right place here to get into much more details on those fundamentals. I expanded a bit on that (it is a fairly popular article) in “How to create a new social order” at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/03/11/how-to-create-a-new-social-order/

You may also wish to read: “Men’s Studies”, at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/11/25/mens-studies/ as well as “History of Men’s Movement (and how to create a new social order)” at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/06/29/history-of-mens-movement-and-how-to-create-a-new-social-order/

Here is a word for lieweary,

You are right about men not complaining often enough. The problem with that is that men don’t necessarily complain about the right things, or that their complaints are not unified or organized. Before much can be done about that, it is necessary for men to begin to work on a common list of complaints. What sort of complaints should those be, and to what end should they be used?

For example, I have a bit of a problem with men’s rights activists who complain that fathers don’t, as a matter of course, receive equal (or equitable) child-access and custody rights after separation and divorce. That’s fine, if we think that a society can function well without families that are headed by married fathers and mothers, and whose children do not live under a common roof with their married parents. At the very best, children who live outside of whole and functioning families receive only about half of the parenting they should receive. Equal parenting does nothing more than ensure that half of the parenting that kids of divorced parents receive is equitably distributed between the parents. That may make the parents feel better (if they can cooperate to coordinate their activities better under the circumstances of two homes than they could when they were still in one home) but it is still only half of the parenting the kids should get, right? Moreover, I have now seen about thirty years of men complaining of being shafted in that and other respects after divorce, but I have not seen anything at all in the way of improving on the condition of men. The rampant discrimination against men is becoming steadily worse the more feminism’s stranglehold on society tightens.

The best sort of parenting kids can get is full-time parenting by both parents. That produces on average less than half of the problems in those children’s outcomes than single or fully shared parenting after divorce does. Check “Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family”, at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php?PHPSESSID=04a5571963443f82281d8c0bd4332322

Do you think that men’s rights activists’ primary concern should be with how to cope with the divorce epidemic and to negotiate the terms of their surrender after the fathers lost the war against the family?

It seems to me that complaining is all fine a good. Nevertheless, holding problems up to public view will not ensure that they get solved. Complaining will not get a car out of the mud in which it got stuck. Putting one’s back to the car and pushing hard will, especially if one can convince bystanders to pitch in and help.

They can’t. The only solution these “conservatives” offer is blaming it all on men; telling men to do the good and honorable thing, while saying nothing to the women who are causing the problems.